the global revolutionary process and the function of the ... · the global revolutionary process...

The Global Revolutionary Process and the Function of the Trotskyist-Posadist IV International

INTRODUCTION

This ‘Report on Organisation’ of the X World Congress by J Posadas, makes references toimportant events and political leaders of the 1970’s.This is the period when the nationalist revolution looks up to the workers state as model forsocial transformation. Peronism is the nationalist movement of Argentina.Boumedienne in Algeria and Echevarria in Mexico were nationalist government leaders.In 1973, there had been the Pinochet military coup. The coup in Argentina was going to takeplace not long after this Congress. In Argentina around that time, Herreras and Miguel were twoCGT trade union leaders who proposed greater measures of trade union democracy, greaterparticipation for the workers in the factories and some economic planning; the AAA was arepressive organisation in the Argentine army that functioned with ‘death squadrons’,kidnapping left wing militants and leaders, and making them ‘disappear’. What Posadas callsthe ‘charros’ is a type of bureaucrat in Mexico.The Soyuz and the Apollo were spacecrafts sent in a joint USA-USSR venture, as part of whatwas called ‘détente’ during the ‘cold war’. Elsewhere, Posadas refers to the ‘bombe a billes’,here translated as the fragmentation bomb.The reference Posadas makes to famished children reloading a vehicle with potatoes and grainis based on a TV documentary that showed the Vietnamese children helping to send supplies tothe Vietnamese soldiers.To help with the reading of this Report in the English language, the word ‘statification’ used by JPosadas has been translated by ‘state ownership’.J Posadas refers to the ‘Czechoslovaks’ in the bureaucracy of the USSR, meaning the tendencyin the Soviet bureaucracy that supported the ‘Prague Spring’ of 1968 and opposed the USSR’sintervention in Czechoslovakia. J Posadas calls them ‘the Russian Czechs’, or sometimes ‘theCzechs’.About the workers states and the USSR, J Posadas refers to what he characterised as thePartial Regeneration.

The Global Revolutionary Processand the Functionof the Trotskyist-PosadistIV International

J POSADAS26 July 1975

Report of Organisation – Xth World Congress Trotskyist-Posadist IV International(From ‘Revue Marxiste’ No. 3, published August 1976)

This Chapter on Organisation will cover a series of aspects where we shall include, centrally,some essential questions like party life, party functioning, the experience of the Internationalitself and the experience it makes in intervening towards the communist parties and thenationalist movements.

1 / 38


We will consider aspects of the process in Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil and Uruguay.We will do this also for some European countries: Italy and France mainly because this is wherethe sharpest process of class struggle is happening.

We consider that the organisms of party functioning must aim to prepare the cadres. It mustbrief them, in such a way that they should be adequate for the task at hand. For them, thismeans their own political preparation through meetings, discussions, writing resolutions andtaking initiatives. The other thing to establish is: what are the aims of the party? For, at everyturn, our party must have an objective. This is the way the International has been able todevelop on a world scale. Had it not done so, we would not be here today and there would bean immense political confusion in the International.

Our movement is transparent. Even though comrades come from very different backgrounds,they all have the same horizon. It is not the horizon of landscapes, you know, nor is it the onethe physicians talk about. It is the horizon formed by the ideas. In physics, they demonstratethat the closer you get to the horizon and the farther away it gets! Our horizon is here, in ourheads. Our perspective is to prepare the Party for the tasks at hand. Whilst it goes on preparing,the Party must be able to contribute ideas. It must contribute on Argentina, France, Chile, Peru,Italy, Britain or Spain. The Party must feed and nourish what happens in the process with ideas,advice and experiences. It will have to know how to do this and develop itself, all at the sametime.

We are the only organisation with the historic and concrete joy of focusing preoccupation andfunctioning to examine, observe, draw conclusions. We must organise thought and experiencesto be discussed in the world communist movement and in the world workers and revolutionarymovement. Here, we will draw conclusions with a view to applying them to the dynamic, thoughempirical, process of the revolution. It is indeed a dynamic process. Take Portugal. It was one ofthe most backward countries and yet the Portuguese Revolution arose from some disputebetween a general and a soldier. When this can happen, it is because a favourable worldprocess is at its root. There is also the crisis of capitalism, of a kind that it cannot resolve anyproblem; all it does is keep Portugal tied-down and motionless. Capitalism is not short ofeconomic expedients; it is just that it cannot produce the ideas to satisfy the human needs oftoday; and this, in turn, is because in Portugal or anywhere, what is wanted is not economicdevices and measures, but social change. The spirit of humanity, its experience, has developedintelligence. Humanity is getting ready to resolve all the problems presented by the economyeven whilst still inside the capitalist system. Humanity finds solutions via programmes,orientations and conclusions that do not increase the solidity of capitalist structures, even whenstill inside those structures. This weakens capitalism and removes the ladder from under itsfoot, rung by rung. To develop, capitalism has nothing to get hold of. It is constantly retreating.

THE MASSES OF ARGENTINA HAVE ADOPTED POINTSOF THE PROGRAMME OF THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT

Measures for the progress of history are required. This is what the spirit and experience ofhumanity have demonstrated. Humanity has created organs that enable it to lay foundations for

2 / 38


further development. In Argentina there is no important communist party. Indeed, it is verysmall. There aren’t any important workers organisations but the masses have recently adoptedaspects of a programme that emanate from the world workers movement. In France, thesocialists are discussing the alternatives facing them; they ask: what is our historic goal? Whatmust we do? Should we go on with the Common Programme? Whilst in France, the socialistsare still wondering, the masses of Argentina have managed to get socialist aspects of theworking class programme adopted in the workers movement. Yet the socialist movement inFrance has better conditions than the Argentine workers movement. Argentina is farther behindcompared to the class struggle in France. All this taken into account rather diminishes theFrench Common Programme. On the whole, the Common Programme is infinitely superior, butit is like a mantle thrown over two movements: one socialist - the other one bourgeois.

Capitalism does not find the social support it needs for the measures it would like to take. Itsinevitable preparation for war stems from these economic, social, and political conditions.Capitalism has not the means to sustain its power. The experience of humanity is led by theproletariat; the proletariat calls the tune and imposes measures of proletarian power.Anti-capitalist measures have their core in the workers states, in the revolutionary countries andin the struggles of the masses of France, Italy and similar countries. The proletariat in Argentinaobserves this and gathers it up. The proletariat in the Latin American countries follows theevents in Europe as much as the other way round. The proletariat everywhere receives theevents of the world and assimilates the experiences made in other places. One can verify thisbecause the implicit message sent to the world by The Whistles in Bologna and The Avalancheof Votes in Italy (1) has been recognised in Argentina. In Argentina, the events of Italy havehelped to shape the programme just proposed by Miguel and Herreras.

The proletarian vanguard assimilates the experiences made in the world, and carries theminside the working class. Herreras has not arisen in history by chance. Since the consciouselements and conscious representatives of history are still missing, history invents them. Itnever happens that history invents what is outside the remit of its necessity. The example ofArgentina that we have given above is only a beginning and the rest of the process will tellwhether the CGT programme becomes accepted. Either it will be given legitimacy, or it will dieaway. It is important to appreciate that this programme has arisen in a trade union. It isimportant to see also its limitations because in its rather indeterminate form, it still runs thedanger of being recuperated by the bourgeois camp. The point of this Argentine CGTprogramme is that it retakes a series of principles from the French Common Programme. So far,so good; now the correct observations it makes need to be acted upon. For example, it saysthat in order to go forward economically, the state needs to take hold of all the commandingheights of the economy. Elsewhere it says that it is the economy that decides and thateconomic planning is required; but then, as if suddenly shy about planning, it proposes the mostun-ambitious and limited measures. This being said, it is quite a programme, because look atwhat they are talking about in a ‘backward’ country like Argentina!

In Chile, the assassin junta hopes to develop the economy at gunpoint. What insolence againsthistory it is for a military junta to grab the economy of Chile with nothing to offer but theempiricism of private property. This assassin band has been able to strike at the revolutionbecause of the erroneous policy of the revolutionary leadership; but this junta wanted to give a

3 / 38


blow to history. It does it by means of stimulating and exacerbating private interest, wielding itas tool for economic development. You know the results: one a one hand, in the hands of theassassin junta both the price and demand for copper collapsed; on the other, the struggle of themasses has increased in determination. They have increased their resolution to struggle andimproved their programmatic consciousness. Time will show that for the junta, this is really quitean insoluble situation.

In Argentina, the repression of the AAA has the same meaning. It forms part of imperialist plans.Now the trade unions inject principles of planning into their programmes. These principles arestill modest and limited, and in this sense, they can still become useful to the nationalbourgeoisies. But they allow the development of consciousness within the masses and insidethe petty bourgeoisie. This saps the confidence of private property.

This is what our comrades of the Argentine section must learn. They must see how to increasetheir ability; how to intervene by supporting and defending the fundamental principles that allowthe development of the economy; workers control and general planning. They must write andexpand on these questions. They must call on the workers movement to take the measure ofthe CGT’s programme, showing in what way it is good and in what way it is also very limited.Our comrades must demonstrate that some points in this programme are of greater benefit tothe bourgeoisie than to the proletariat: such a limited programme prevents, detains, containsand hinders economic development, to the point when it rolls it back. Why is this? The reason isthat the bourgeoisie develops the economy for its own interests, and in relation to what securesits means of accumulation. It invests, yes, if this it anticipates a profit for itself. But with planningin the general interest, on the other hand, the economy develops infinitely more. Thebourgeoisie says: “you cannot remove the boss”. But certainly one can! To go forward andprogress at all, these measures are needed because genuine progress calls for them.

It is necessary to develop all these ideas in the workers movement, among the communists,and also in the military. It is important to realise that the rules and programmes of the MilitaryTechnologists are also some kind of invention by history. These people have free reign for thewhile. So, there must be additions made in the CGT programme: the fundamental principles ofworkers control and true workers participation, because this finishes with careerism. From thecapitalist point of view, Argentina may be one of the most developed Latin American countriesbut it goes on being a semi colonial one. It is not the most industrially advanced, but its capitalisteconomic forms are of the most developed in Latin America: in the countryside as much as intowns. It is a structured country from the capitalist point of view and for that reason, it isimportant that the army should support the measure of workers control.

It is necessary to intervene showing the need to extend the very limited sort of workers controlproposed by the bureaucrats in factories. There must be assemblies and debates where theworkers decide who controls and how to control. In places where decisions emanate fromworkshops or from sections, these must be passed on from factory to factory. This is the way tocreate workers control; whilst this takes place, workers democracy must be insisted upon. Itmust be developed so that it presides over the correct kind of workers control and over what todo next. For example, good measures proposed by the trade unions remain under threat ofbeing used for an alliance between union bureaucracy and national bourgeoisies. True, there

4 / 38


are cases when such alliances do not even end up pleasing the national bourgeoisie. In 1946for example, the trade union leaders in Argentina proposed a ‘Production Road Map’: the unionswould control, and they did: both the workers - and the bosses! Finally, this developed asuper-bureaucracy quite independent from everyone. First the bosses did not like this andrefused. But when the bureaucrats made the commitment that the said ‘workers control’ wouldbe exercised by them only, the bosses agreed.

In Mexico, the same phenomenon: the bureaucracy has managed to acquire a certain notion ofthe function it can be allowed play, not missing out on the possibilities for itself. It has appetiteenough for the cake, and the eating of it – that cake Engels talked about. The comrades mustintervene to prevent this happening; for, from an idea of control not altogether objectionable,there can emanate a measure of control determined by those at the tops and nothing at all to dowith workers control. So, one must insist that the workers intervene. The workers must discussin the factories and in the trade unions; and indeed, in the whole country. The workers mustintervene to determine the course of production, and when they have done this, to spread outthe scope of their resolution. It is not enough to worry about how much to produce, and howmuch the profits. It is a matter of the entire planning of the production. True workers controlmust lead to the workers deciding on the question of the content of the production.

What activity for the coming stage? What activity is wanted following this congress? The activityof the International and of each of its sections consists in deepening the programme; and ingetting oneself prepared, in organising oneself politically with these objectives in mind.

Algeria is a country quite different from Argentina, France, Mexico or Italy. Granted; but thesecountries do not differ from each other when it comes to their general experience of what it isnecessary to do. The gains made in our sections are communicated to the world workers andcommunist movements, improving the ability of the latter to intervene on their own account.Each section must give itself a plan and objectives: like what do we want in the coming period,what do we aim for?

Generally speaking and without entering quite into the analysis of each country, our aim in thenext stage is to develop our party so that it should function organically, with an aim; it shouldhave progress forecasts in the activity of influencing the world communist movement, forexample, or in gaining members to the International. There are countries with small socialist,communist or nationalist predominance where we must aim at winning a current that preparesitself consciously. Ours is not an activity we have plucked out of thin air and about which wepropose to go out and see how it fares. In our activity, we must use the means of forecast andprepare ourselves according to it. We are going to develop cadres to the capacity of each, andthe individual preoccupation of each. This makes a selection; not a selection arising from whatone or another says in a meeting, but according to methodical behaviour.

One of the greatest gains from regular functioning is that it lends method to the cadres. Methodis the indispensable tool. One must prepare for action without improvisation. One must learnfrom the errors committed and the blows that will come. We do not fear the blows for we havethe necessary consciousness to keep going. This Congress is of the most logical expressions ofthe progresses we have made: now, let us get ready – not to receive blows, but to go forth!

5 / 38


We must get ready for inexhaustible openings to come. The whole workers movement offerspossibilities for our development. Argentina is a case in point. In Argentina, imperialism hadfigured that with the AAA and the Isabel Peron’s government, it could land a pretty discouragingkick on the workers movement. The reaction of the masses through the trade unions shows thatthis did not work. They have not been cowed; they have gone on following national politics andfeeling part of the world. Had there not been the recent struggles in Italy that led to the BolognaWhistles, and The Landslide of Votes, had there not been the Popular Union in France, therewould not have been such a reaction in Argentina. We are not saying that what happened inItaly and France determined what happened in Argentina! It does not mean that the onemovement was pre-requisite to the other! It means that such movements nourish each other,creating a given level of determination in the world proletarian vanguard. In turn, the vanguardfinds the ways and means to communicate with the rest of the population. This is not doneverbally but via propositions, resolutions, combats and organisms.

Our attention must focus on fundamental events; priority must be given to such in ourdiscussions. Our ideas must develop around the experiences and around the tasks at hand.This is simple in principle; but it gets complicated by the way events present themselves and byour lack of sufficient forces. For example, when intervening in a movement where the leadershipis nationalist and the base is working class, one requires the programme as set out in ourdocument “From Nationalism to the Workers State”. Essentially, this type of movement isnationalist because of its economic and social objectives. If the workers are supporting it, it isbecause they hope to push it forward. We must apply ourselves to see how we can accompanythe experience such a movement makes, because it is in that experience that the workers arematuring and fighting. This is what we must do now in this present stage of Peronism inArgentina. It demands from us that we present persuasively the necessity for the bestprogramme. To do this, we must dedicate ourselves to the consistent study of this process andreally understand it.

THE DIALECTICAL AND MARXIST METHOD OF ANALYSISIS REQUIRED IN BUILDING THE WORLD REVOLUTIONARY LEADERSHIP

The hybrid nature of the world process generates hybrid consequences: meaning that, the worldrevolutionary movement goes on swelling with programme, confidence and optimism, eventhough the leaderships still remain bourgeois. The bourgeoisie can neither shake off theworking class, nor can it really remain itself strictly on its own bourgeois terrain. This demandsfrom us that we should learn how to operate without either being sectarian on the one hand, orwithout being ‘suivist’ on the other - meaning following behind. We have to be judicious in thechoice of slogans. Certainly, this is rather complicated, but one must learn this. Aren’t we doingother things equally as complicated? And another thing: we are talking about a historic processthat is not going to be led by ourselves! But then, when did history need to be led? By ‘history’,we mean that the economy, by its very nature, must needs to unify itself, and this, on a worldscale. Its very nature is the cause of this; it is a world necessity. The idea represents it, foreseesit and organises the natural channels in which it will flow. The idea is not the force of theprocess of history. It is its representation. The economy tends to unify and it needs to becomecentralised. This cannot happen all of itself: the party must be there. Where the party does notproduce the timely slogan, if the lead is not ready in time, it cancels its role; it regresses or it

6 / 38


dies.

In 1917, had Lenin not been there, the Russian Revolution would not have happened. Trotskycites ten reasons for the triumph of the Russian Revolution. Point nine is Lenin; this is not anumber that positions Lenin; it means to show where Trotsky placed political leadership inchronological order of importance. Without Lenin, the Revolution could not have triumphed. InLatin America and Africa, the leaderships are made of tendencies that come from the nationalistbourgeois or bourgeois camp. Our intervention must be timely, with ideas and slogans, withprogrammes and agitation. Inside the nationalist leaders, we must help develop their capacity togeneralise from experience. This capacity will permit them to keep going forward. They must beshown how to be confident and certain that the way ahead of them can only be revolutionary.Without us doing this, there will be no success from those leaderships in Latin America, Asiaand Africa. This is so because, coming as they do from the bourgeois or the nationalist camp,they have no perspective of their own. They have no perspective because the intermediateeconomy they seek between the bourgeois one and that of the workers state - does not exist.History has not found the way to render this possible. Indeed, there are only two ways foreconomic development: the bourgeois way, or the workers state way. Thus, there are only twoways of thinking this, two ways of thought about it, and only two definitions.

One must intervene in this process however, and learn. The communist leaderships do notinterpret the revolutionary process. To the extent that they originate from previous bureaucraticstages, they are not the standard bearers of the revolutionary struggle for socialism. And so ithappens that the workers state is a contradictory thing. Its structure, foundations and roots arein socialism but its political leadership is bureaucratic: distribution in the workers state of theUSSR remains bourgeois - namely to each according to ability. What are then the prospects foradvance in this conflict that takes the form of a contradiction rather than that of an antagonism?What is the bureaucracy? One thing is certain: it is not the genuine and consciousrepresentative of the process; it does not represent the ideas, programme or policies necessaryfor the progress of the workers state. To the extent to which this is so, how is it that bureaucracykeeps going? It does, because it is obliged to. Any step forward it may take is imposed upon itby the needs of the economy, of science and of the masses. Thus bureaucracy does notrepresent, or even reflect, the formidable process below. Quite the reverse, it contains it. It triesits best to throttle it. When, as happens now, the Soviet bureaucracy appeals for help and forthe preservation of some proletarian ideology, it is because it knows imperialism prepares forwar and can launch it any moment. Besides this, the bureaucracy feels the constant dangerrepresented to its survival by the existence within it of the ‘Prague Spring’ types, the Russian‘Czechs’, who come from a previous stage. Faced with this, the bureaucracy appeals for somemeasures – but the latter are no longer appropriate. Meanwhile, the ‘Czechs’ take alldispositions necessary to foil the advent of a new ‘Lenin’. As a result, the bureaucracy proceedsuncertainly, torn between its determination not to give in to the masses, and its concern to saveitself from its opponents. To the extent to which it can still identify with this stage in thedevelopment of the workers state, it is forced to associate with one revolution or two in theworld. Whilst in the corridors, there lurk types like Solzhenitsyn.

The communists do not understand this process. It is not that they lack intelligence, but thatthey come from a movement and a process where the methodology is neither dialectical nor

7 / 38


Marxist. Indeed, bureaucratic interest has governed their way of looking at reality for so longthat they can only see part of it. Now, the necessity of history marches on, and forces them tolook again. For our part we must not wait, but intervene to help the formation of communisttendencies, supporting those that go forward and preparing for the day when some will comeand start weighing importantly in the world communist movement.

If we try to develop ourselves outside the communist movement in the nationalist, catholic ormilitary ones, it is still with the idea of becoming able to weigh in the communist movement.Impulsions can come from anywhere but the decisions are made in Moscow. This is notbecause Moscow is more venerable or strong. It is because Moscow saw the most completerevolution, the one with the most complete historic base, the most necessary base; and themost complete proletariat in history.

To all those who mock the soviet proletariat by asking: “but where is this soviet proletariat?” wereply: “do not go after the soviet proletariat, go after Stalin and Nazi imperialism”. This is theway to tackle the question and the reply comes direct from the mouth of the soviet proletariat. Ifthe soviet proletariat is not standing out more towards the front where it can be seen clearly, it isbecause its leadership is not letting it. But even far from view, one can tell it is not keeping quiet.The proletariat intervenes and weighs in soviet society, defending in the most wholehearted andconcentrated way the economic, scientific and centralised advances of the Soviet Union. Hadthis not been the case, Solzhenitsyn would have become chief of the Moscow ‘Czechs’ by now.

Though having to improve ourselves every day, we already trust in our ability because werepresent a progress for history. Of course, we represent only a part of it; the whole of progressmeans the masses: the Soviet, the German, French, Czechoslovak, etc - not to forget the NorthAmerican masses, in a historic sense. For, if the North American proletariat had been doingnothing but sit and admire Yankee imperialism filling its pockets, the war would have beenlaunched long ago. One of the reasons, though perhaps not the most important, why Yankeeimperialism has not yet launched the war, is because it looks over its shoulder at the reaction ofthe North American proletariat: ‘Will it clap, eh?’ - But no. Yankee imperialism sees that theproletariat is much more ready to smash it than to clap and support. By nature and inclination,the proletariat cannot be disposed to be the constant and conscious instrument of imperialism.This is why the meetings of the AFL/CIO are exercises for hierarchies with not a worker in sight.This so-called trade union centre doesn’t at all represent the workers movement.

About the topic of ‘workers participation’ emanating from the USA, we hear of a slogan callingfor the “participation of the workers in employers’ and state panels”. The working class mustcounter this by upholding a workers’ programme in every workplace. For, even when a firm isstate owned, it does not mean that it operates in the interests of the population! In thosecompanies, planning and administration are not applied with objectivity. As for what happens insmaller enterprises, one must demand salary rises, improvements in work conditions and posethat production must be at the service of the population; such an enterprise must hear clearlywhat the workers want and it must explain why it refuses. In North America, the leaders of theworkers organisations are used by the bosses like puppets; the workers must not accept this.This is also what ‘class struggle’ means. Yankee enterprises often talk of associating theworkforce, but this is to corrupt a top trade union layer and keep the workers movement out.

8 / 38


Today, revolution is worldwide and it can be made to flow in many channels. This is one suchchannel and we must remember it. The workers movement must be independent and denouncethe collusion between the trade union leaderships and the bosses. The programme in thissituation must stress the need for economic development to be at the service of the wholepopulation. One must show how things would be so much improved for the North Americanpopulation, if only the economy was in the hands of the workers movement, properly stateowned and under workers control.

We keep returning to the Stalin question because it will soon be relevant. It is necessary tostudy the texts about this matter; not to show that we have been right all along, but to show thatTrotsky’s struggle was justified; as ours’ is justified; to reason with the workers’ vanguard andgive it the arguments needed. There is a crying need for arguments, analyses, to educate theworkers vanguard in the method of analysis, to educate intermediate communist sectors, thesocialists, the nationalists, the Catholics and the military. We gave once a course to a nationalistmilitary sector, a course that is still applicable to soldiers who start thinking. We examined thereasons for their fear of Marxism. We inspected the following antagonistic contradiction:pragmatic rigidity of military nature, versus the dialectical method of Marxism. In the two parts ofthe contradiction, objectives and methods differ - granted! But in this stage of history, themilitary feels that their uniform must be the signifier of something charged with human meaning,concerned with improvements, disposed to make a difference in history. Because this is not raretoday, it shows that the conditions exist for the military to hear courses on Marxism, and to hearabout the economy. The courses may not be always exhaustive, but explanations can be givenabout struggles, about the economy, society, human relations and social relations. Much can besaid on music and song – with arguments and reasoning. We do not mean the sort ofarguments the mystics give, but those worthy of the revolutionary organiser who seeks to beexplicit and to organise: showing the why and the how. This endeavour, helped by the presentfavourable world process, can only find a welcome in the military.

The other fundamental aspect for which the comrades must get ready is this: our task towardsthe communist party. Let us not forget that we are in a rising curve of the revolution. From Italyto Argentina, there is no great difference. The workers vanguard establishes communicationbetween the two. In Argentina, there is hardly any communist party at all. The socialist party isinsignificant. However, even then, the proletariat of that country adopts points of programmeand policies that have nothing to do with Argentine nationalism; nothing to do with god, religionor warmongering. What it adopts springs from the proletarian programme and from the generalclass struggle tending to incline towards the workers state. It is neither Miguel nor Herreras whoinvented this, be sure of that. These points of programme come from the experience far andwide made by the masses – in Italy, France, even Britain. Had there been a retreat in the worldprocess of the revolution, you would not have witnessed such an animation in Argentina! In turn,the Argentine masses send a feedback to the masses of Italy, France, etc. It is the unequal andcombined process of history, where what is unequal is slight whilst what is combinedcharacterises the process almost entirely. What is most advanced in the world often finds itsrepresentation through lesser means, as in Argentina, where the means are less. This must bea rock of confidence for our comrades to trust in the necessity for them to plan their activity ineach section, aiming at programmatic advances. This applies anywhere, Algeria, Spain,anywhere. The internal life of the party and its activity must be planned: political life, theoretical

9 / 38


study, the development of cadres, the ability to intervene, the number of members, etc. All thismust be done in order to weigh every time more.

It seems that in the official State Summits to be held soon, like the one that took place at theinitiative of Boumedienne or of Echevarria, Argentina is going to play a very important part. Oursections must plan their campaigns. This is the conclusion of this meeting. The development ofthe revolution expresses itself in the form of the Partial Regeneration. It also expresses itselfthrough the advance of the socialist parties and the struggle of the masses in the world: fromAfrica and Asia, to Latin America. The triumph of the revolution in Vietnam is emphatic; thesame goes for Cambodia and Laos. The current that seeks unification between those threecountries is a beginning, and a necessity at all levels: the economy, culture and science. If notthis, ‘self determination’ does not mean anything.

There is such a thing as ‘self determination’ but there is also another like: ‘self revolution’.Problems are not solved today as in Lenin’s time. Ethiopia shows how to do it now, and it is aswe have proposed. Nationalities and ‘self determination’ are no longer sought after solely tostimulate the individual interest of a country, a region or a particular sector. Such questions arenow solved by means of unification, with the question of the economy placed squarely in thecentre of it. And what is there at the centre of the economy? There is the organised interventionof the masses, through their organisms whose aim is to discuss and lead. This is the way themasses are going about learning how to direct the economy, how to organise it and how todistribute its gains. This is a generous fountain of historic and social confidence, a confidencethat will eventually be transcended and communicated to all other fields, like those of culture, ofscience and of revolution.

THE REVOLUTIONARY PROGRAMME FOR THE CONSTRUCTIONOF THE WORKERS STATE

Another matter arises clearly as a consequence of the exhaustion of capitalism: it is the generalworld crisis of the socialists, the communists and the Catholics; crisis too of the military, and inthe nationalists like the Peronists in Argentina. This is because today’s problems by-pass theprogrammes and policies of them all, making demands that overwhelm their leaderships. It wasnot like this before. In the past, regular rapports of alliances and agreements between capitalismand these leaders enabled them both to resolve the problems arising in each country throughconcessions, often very small.

In relation to the masses, the vanguard and other layers, these leaders had become used tocontain the process of demands in this way: concede a little, a very little if possible; partialconcession is the thing: a privilege here, a little economic or social improvement there. Theseleaderships were masters at gaining time. But today, the game is up. Capitalism has no longerthe means to allow this to go on. It is exhausted and its possibilities to go on with this are atzero. The trade union bureaucracies, the union leaders and the political parties no longer findthe margin of manoeuvre they need for their policy of conciliation with capitalism. For their part,the masses are not disposed to stop demanding their rights. Sure of themselves, they keep

10 / 38


marching on; and in this, there lies the real cause for the crisis of capitalism. It is the mainreason for the crisis of capitalist policy. We are not talking about a simple economic crisis.

There are other factors of crisis, like the economy, inter-capitalist competition and the workersstates; but the crisis of capitalism is historically determined by the development of therevolution. It is due to the fact that the masses keep marching on. Far from giving up, they givesupport to the rise and development of class and revolutionary tendencies. As neither capitalismnor bureaucracy can yield concessions, anyone attempting to find new intermediate terrains ofclass conciliation is frustrated. Moreover, the reason for the crisis of capitalism is also thereason for the crisis in the communists. The communists are forced to give up on the idea ofbourgeois democracy as the way forward.

Communist leaders like Carrillo in Spain want to keep the bourgeois democratic pillow. Portugalhas shown clearly what to make of it, but Carrillo has chosen to close his eyes and pronounce:“No. In Spain, it is different; we shall be prudent”. The Spanish masses laugh because they donot give a fig for this prudence. They keep intact their decision to combat now that there is nolonger room for class conciliation. This is the reason for the crisis they all experience. Thatsame reason has other effects: it is the same reason why Herreras in Argentina stands up andsays: “The bourgeoisie will not go away before having used every means at its disposal to stayin power”. We do read in this declaration more than needful because it may have been made toattract attention. Nonetheless, it shows that one can go further: in proposing the immediateapplication of the points of the CGT programme like the participation of the workers, the right ofthe masses to intervene and greater trade union democracy; and in adding, for instance, thesliding scale of salaries with weekly adjustments.

It is in 1938 that Trotsky detailed these points of programme; many sniggered behind theirhand, telling him: “These things are old hat. The Trotsky (of 1917) died long ago”. Not so.Trotsky’s theoretical thought and his capacity of foresight have not died. The sliding scale ofwages and the sliding scale of working hours are still very much on the order of the day. Morestill: any enterprise to be closed pretending that it cannot pay its way, must pass into the handsof the state. No more talking, the state must expropriate it and put it under workers control.Factory committees must be set up to raise this discussion. They must be allowed to takeimmediately the kind of measures needed to solve the crisis.

Our party must discuss all these things; and whilst it does it, it must focus on the crisis of thenationalists, the military, the communists and the socialists. It must have a plan of interventionuniting activities in the following way: whilst our party must take a close interest in trade unionmatters, it must concentrate on the programmatic demands and political solutions we proposeagainst the crisis of capitalism. This is what we must do the world over, in Europe, Asia, Africaand Latin America. The party must take the initiative in this way and fix itself clear objectives.

The communists and partly the socialists make proposals but these remain limited. In France,the Common Programme is good but it lacks in dynamism and immediate goals. Should wedare to say that it is more ‘common’ in irresponsiveness than in programme? There arehundreds of failed factories occupied by the workers and what does the Common Programmesay? It does not occur to them to pose state ownership, planning and workers control. So, our

11 / 38


comrades of the French, Italian and British sections must do it; they must take the initiative ofraising these ideas. They must do this less by denouncing than by arguing. In the face ofunemployment, the lack of jobs for the young, it is not enough to say: “we want work”. Workmust come accompanied by other kind of relations, human relations. As capitalism is incapableof this, one must show the way and add: state planning, workers committees for control,workers councils – in Italy, Spain, everywhere. Even though the communists turn away and tryto avoid it, we propose to discuss this with them.

Boumedienne thinks he cannot find a solid point of support for his socialist programme. But thisis because he needs straighten up the Algerian workers movement first; at present he does notallow the workers to intervene in the factories; they have not the full democratic right to do so. Itis not exact to say that the workers, if allowed, would come up with unacceptable demands. Farfrom it, the example of every revolution shows that the workers have never put difficulties in theway of it, be it about salaries, work or life conditions. The Vietnamese workers are the examplethat illustrates very well how they starved whilst carrying supplies, not touching a single grain ofunguarded corn. It is documented that in Vietnam, people helped reload overturned containerswithout taking anything at all. This sort of thing happened in Vietnam but also in Laos andCambodia. It happened in Italy and France too.

If the workers do not act like this today in capitalism, it is because the present relations arecapitalist. The rising tide that leads people into the taking of anti-capitalist measures is full ofeducation and a source of inexhaustible inspiration. This is why we must propose toBoumedienne that he should call on the Algerian workers to intervene through workers controland workers councils - the latter acting through the means of trade union democracy. This way,all the problems get discussed. It would be false to believe that this being the case, the workersare going to start making exaggerated or disproportionate salary demands. There are those whoare capable of this, and they are the managers, the administrators and the bureaucrats. Forthey busy themselves with ‘capital gain assessments’ and other such things, certain that theworth of their important selves has a figure on their salary slips. For their part, the workers willwant a salary to live on, in correspondence with their feeling of responsibility in history. In thismatter, no one is Algerian, French or Brazilian. The working class acts in this way because of itshistoric condition. Certainly, you can find one worker or two who want to be one of the boys. Butas a class, the working class does not do this. This is because the progress of history is callingfor the workers in power and not for one or two powerful workers. Vietnam is an example.

The experts in psychology were aghast when they observed the following event in Vietnam:potatoes had fallen off a military supply lorry and a group of famished Vietnamese children wentto pick them up, not thinking of keeping them to eat. Enough for the experts to throw all theirbooks in the sea, don’t you think? Psychologists are in the habit of measuring and cataloguinghuman actions, but they do it according to the pattern of human relations already established inthe capitalist world; this makes them blind to class conduct. For our part, we declare withcomplete confidence and with a sense of historic joy that the working class will never putdifficulties in the way of revolution. Some people have declared that, in Chile, the massesbrought the revolution down themselves! How stupid one can get! The masses did not make theChilean revolution fail! Far from it, they were desperate for the proper means by which toforward it, namely factory expropriations, out with the bureaucrats and the administrators, etc. It

12 / 38


was precisely the working class who rose against all those types.

To operate as a class, the working class needs to unify its behaviour. For this to happen, thevanguard at the head of it must have access to the rest. This is best achieved in trade uniondemocracy because the vanguard can address the political life of the whole class. It can speakto it and communicate with it. Take Algeria or France: what is the political life of the class? It isjust about zero. Do they allow this in France, and if so, where? We are not talking about whetherMarx, Engels and Trotsky are available for reading or not; we refer to an open political life and aworking life where debate is normal. But deep inside itself, the working class does discuss: ifunimpeded, it naturally inclines towards Trotsky - the latter pointing back to Marx. Intelligent andengaged, the working class goes to Marx. We need to intervene and enter polemics aroundthose aspects in the working class movement.

Communist Party, communist base and communist leadership are not to be confused; neitherconfused, nor opposed to each other. For the degrees of maturation are different between partyand leadership. In previous stages of history and up until when classes disappear, the workingclass will remain more sensitive to the progress of history than its leadership. Certainly, we donot expect the working class to become expert in Soyouz’ mechanics. The working class isimpressed by its ability to go so high up in the sky; but it wonders how it is that floods anddroughts are not prevented yet; why is it that scientific knowledge is not used so that peoplestop dying of hunger? How come that knowledge is not directed towards the eradication of thecause of all calamities, namely capitalism itself? If asked, this will be the practical conclusion ofthe workers. It is already the conclusion of the communist and of the socialist vanguard.

It is a fact that theoretical and political comprehension is lesser amongst the socialists. This is tobe seen in what their leaders write in France, Italy and Germany, a marker of the fact that theyare closer to the capitalist camp. For all they are strong on intellectual pride, their discourseremains no less outside class objectives. They are mostly managers of political parties – partieswith a recent past and doubtful future. This is because the future belongs to the socialistmasses and to those of the socialist leaders who seek the progress of history. It is important tovalue at its worth the reasoning there is in the workers vanguard, its capacity forcomprehension; and also its capacity for action, because its conclusions are of the practicalkind, materialist and dialectical. Certainly, it lacks in actual knowledge. It has a deficit inscientific briefing, scientific practice and corresponding scientific certainty. But it makes up forthis in the practice of its life. Its experience as a class makes of it a dialectical materialist. Notnecessarily well versed in matters of physics or of chemistry, it is an authority in the field ofsocial relations. As it intervenes in social relations, it prepares the conditions by which tobecome an expert tomorrow in physics and chemistry.

The Soyouz/Apollo space flight paints a view of the world that does not exist, akin to two smilingfigures cavorting before the useless backdrop of conciliation. The working class is not fooledand this is very obvious because some bourgeois papers report: “many people say the meetingin space of Soyouz and Apollo is a comedy.” In fact, the bourgeois are warning each other:“don’t be taken in, don’t fall asleep under the Soyouz’ kisses”. Of course, there have not beenany debates about Apollo or Soyouz in the factories. This does not stop the fact that it isprecisely there that occupations are taking place at the moment, occupations with

13 / 38


un-interrupted, continuous production. The workers go on producing and better than before,with lower production costs and greater sales, enough for the workers to live better. Theworkers see quite well that the bosses are redundant and play no role. In their practicalexperience, the workers verify every day that they can manage without the boss. In corners, youcan hear the groans of a foreman or that of a communist, a socialist or trade union leader, at aloss about the serious matters of capital flow, investments, returns and balances. Full of gravitasabout the various aspects of these quite simple matters, they hope to intimidate the workers.But these are only functions! Besides, they are quite easy to sort out: expropriation - ofeverything. In this, the workers are ‘for’; those ‘against’ are the bureaucrats, fearingconsequences, conflicts, civil war or whatever; in one word, they let themselves be intimidated.

Nothing like this would weigh much if only the communist parties and the socialists had apolitical life. Civil war, really? And if so, would it be such a catastrophe? And if so, for whom?They always avoid discussing this, but it must be discussed; and this, everywhere. Even if inAlgeria, for instance, this debate is not on the order of the day right away, one must discuss it allthe same, to raise the level of comprehension in people and for them to get used to the idea ofdominating all the events of history; and mostly, to allow the worker, peasant and pettybourgeois vanguard to trust in its own self, and to increase its self-confidence. None of this maybe of immediate concern in Algeria today, but it forms part of the learning of how to combineconfidence and logical reasoning with the capacity for intervention. Generally speaking,Boumedienne needs all this; but in particular, he needs this kind of organised force behind himto enable him to go forward. That he is looking for support shows in the way he goes to seekthat of Echevarria in Mexico. Even though this is not unreasonable, it is likely to yield secondaryresults compared with the support he could find in Algeria.

When we get involved it must be to apply these experiences, to develop our persuasive criticalcapacity and to increase our own means of intervention. The vanguard is way over the level ofthe leaderships and it has authority itself over the rest of the masses. The problems of this stageof history need resolving: there is the economic crisis, the rise in the cost of living,unemployment. In previous times, the struggles around these things were met with unmitigatedrepression: In the US, Germany, France, Italy or Britain. Today, however, capitalism fearsresorting to this, regardless of whether it would like to do it. Certainly it would like to resort tofascism in France and Italy, if only it could. But instead, the historic conditions are favourable tothe progress and action of the masses. Capitalism is isolated, without means or real strength.Indeed, it has atomic weapons and quite a military arsenal for intervention, but that does notchange the fact that it is at a loss about what to do apart from using those. Deep down, it doesnot even believe it can co-ordinate all its forces for an outcome favourable to itself in generalwar. On the other hand, the one who has all the right conditions to intervene is the proletariat.To the crises, it has the solutions.

The proletariat has the conditions to intervene. The Soyouz/Apollo mission gives the falseimpression that an alliance is needed with the capitalist system, that it can be done, and thatone should forge ahead in like fashion. This is deceiving for the petty bourgeoisie, thetechnicians, the administrators and others who are increasingly attracted by the proletariat. Thissuggests to them that there is a possibility for historic conciliation between the workers stateand capitalism. They are invited to believe falsely that it is all fair play: as if one could count on

14 / 38


imperialism to surrender to the side that will eventually be shown to be the most able andresourceful. This is what this space embrace is saying. We stop short of calling it a historicfarce, because the Soviet side really means to try and win the capitalist system over. But this isno good, of course. And it lends capitalism an image that is an illusion, as if one should believethat capitalism can be made to reason; as if capitalism could think and adjust its movements,economic and social measures, its politics and its military, along the lines dictated by reason!Not so. Capitalism decides according to its own interests and it avails itself of every historicopportunity.

It is fundamental to show how capitalism is the one that acts in a centralised manner as far asits historic interests and class possibilities are concerned. If capitalism makes this space ‘rendezvous’, it is because its interests are obliging it to do so. It realises that an enormous layer of theUS population looks up to the Soviet Union. This is logical because one only has to look at theUSSR, and then at the US, and compare.

There is a stir of discussion about these events in the communist, socialist, proletarian,Peronist, catholic and military movements. But as a whole, these movements lack greatly inself-confidence, policies, programmes and objectives. Pressed forward by the masses, theygrope about without seeing, hoping that they may find a way of commanding some attention inthe top notches and perhaps be allowed to consort with them a little longer.

In spite of the limited aspects of what Herreras and Miguel pose, we must support what is validand try to spread it to the rest. For example, they propose workers’ participation in the factories.In this case, we must raise very simple arguments, such as: In the name of whom are theworkers going to participate in running the factory? Indeed, the workers must participate, butsurely, they must do so in the name of the workers; if not, what are the workers called upon todo? Who are they going to represent? This debate is an opportunity to make proposals thatshow how to uphold the interests of the workers movement and population; one can show thatany production or planning must be made to serve interests wider than those of the capitalists;otherwise capitalism adapts workers participation and serves itself. In a process of workersparticipation, there will be debates about the hours of work, conditions of work, salaries andinvestments. This will be the time to raise the necessity for workers control; for example, if theworkers’ delegates are left to face the employers alone, they are drawn into becoming the toolof the bosses. If the delegates are subject to recall by the workers, they will have to be therepresentatives of the workers’ side among the bosses - and it will soon transpire thatmanagement need not be there and that it must not be capitalist! If this control is not imposedon the workers’ delegate, an adaptation takes place that enables the bosses’ interests to growtheir tentacles inside the workers movement and the trade unions.

The party must discuss and prepare. In 1948, we already wrote in an article what we are sayinghere. In those days, Peron was calling for workers’ delegates on the management board of therailways. It was a state enterprise, and he may have hoped to improve it to his credit; he mayhave calculated that a workers’ delegate can easily be made to speak for management againstthe workers. This is why our party must discuss and be ready.

Today, you have the same situation in Mexico. The trade union of the electricians STERM

15 / 38


threatens to stop supporting the government, and indeed to oppose it. We advise not toseparate the union from the government but to raise political ideas instead, to help the Mexicanrevolution. True, one must not remain submitted to the state apparatus, but the aim must be toremain in a position to influence the government. Our party needs to be prepared to accomplishsuch tasks. This is done on one hand, by discussing, and on the other by dynamic intervention.

There have been agreements recently between Argentina and the Soviet Union. There is a verygreat advance in this way, but not enough; there is the need for a countrywide planning inArgentina. This is going to demand the workers movement becomes a factory of ideas,proposals, suggestions, measures and its own planning programmes. The workers movementwill have to resort to educating its own ranks, as a class, and insist on vigorous discussions inthe trade unions and factories. Why shouldn’t the workers discuss the planning of the country?To say the workers are not interested can only be false! What the workers demonstrate is nottheir lack of interest; it is their lack of interest in the meetings of the bureaucrats who are all talkand no action. This is why the workers leave the meetings. When they prepare for action, farfrom doing this, they concentrate.

These are very important experiences that solicit our intervention. Our Greek comrades havegiven us illustrations. The recent confrontations in Greece between the masses and police werenot the work of leftists or rebels, but that of the working class. This is soon going to haveimportant repercussions.

RETURN TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MARXIST ANALYSIS

We must prepare for intervention in the new situations, in Argentina, Brazil, Greece or Algeria.We must support all the advances in those countries, in the movements and the governments.We must encourage and nurture the formation of organisms that will ease the task of theworking class. We are no longer in a stage when there was sufficient historic time to startbuilding from scratch revolutionary parties. Now we must use the tools that exist - legacies ofhistory. By this we mean that the moment of definition is close by. We base our tactics andprospects for intervention upon the rhythms and delays we perceive in history. And all the while,we watch closely the debates in the world communist movement.

Each of our sections must really understand, dominate and argue. It must be able to explainsuch matters as what Stalin did and the historic reasons for his death. It must know theexperiences in history that explain the degeneration of the workers state. Each section mustknow the reasons why the workers state maintains itself in spite of degeneration. This is not any‘antinomy’ as some say; it is a contradiction that will resolve itself in the way of everycontradiction: either the degenerated workers state will return to capitalism, or it will overcomeits degeneration. The paramount topic for study in our sections is, ‘what is the workers state?’

About the dictatorship of the proletariat, there are hardly any references made in the worldcommunist movement or in the workers states. We keep returning to this. We raised this matterquite a long time ago in an article on Trotsky and Lenin, who both wrote a lot about thedictatorship of the proletariat. Many things have happened since Trotsky’s death that he couldnot have foreseen. Foremost about these is the advent of 14 workers states as we have today,

16 / 38


workers states divided among themselves! Trotsky could not have foreseen that the SovietUnion would remain alone in the World War; and that it would not be crushed even then; andwould be followed by other revolutions. He could not foretell all this in concrete terms. But hesaw the general trend of history and he said in 1938: “In ten years, millions of revolutionaries willfollow the programme and objectives of the IV International”.

The course of history has illustrated this well. Ten years later, in 1948, there were twelve newworkers states. Trotsky was not making pronouncements to become famous! He summed upthe prospects. He managed to keep his ability for clear foresight in the most difficultcircumstances of history: the whole Bolshevik vanguard had been assassinated around him.The workers movement was in retreat and Stalin had just made a pact with Hitler! In spite of this– we were the only ones to point this out at the time – there was still Mexico, Cardenas, andCardenas’ policy, showing that the workers movement never did let itself be entirely crushed.Retreating, and greatly hit, certainly. But it never gave up, and even less disappeared.Cardenas was the expression that such were the relation of world forces, even then.

From 1936 to 1938, Spain received 180,000 revolutionaries from all corners of the world, half ofwhom were workers’ cadres. Therefore one cannot say simply that the workers movement wasin retreat. This would be wrong. There was indeed a retreat but the vanguard was on the watchfor fresh points of support. From there, it was making itself ready to launch new offensives anddraw the proletariat behind itself. Had this not been the case, there would not have been such amobilisation for Spain. Shortly after this, the same thing happened in Yugoslavia where 250,000young people from the world came and started building railways. They laid hundreds ofkilometres of track by hand in the same way as happened in the Mexican revolution underPancho Villa.

Youth was not invented yesterday! Youth comes from long ago, before Vietnam and the presentworld revolutionary situation! However, it is a fact that young people have been much in thepicture during and after the Second World War. In 1948, the youth rose in a general swell. Itcould not keep an even tempo and a durable programmatic form because the leaderships didnot permit it. Had the communists taken power in 1948 in France and Italy, the Youth with theadults would have taken power in the rest of the world.

And now, it is a fact that the communist movement has no notion of what the workers states are.They are at an even greater loss about the differences between them. We characterised Cubaas a ‘sui generis’ workers state, and that its political revolution was also ‘sui generis’. We saidthat this qualification applied to no other workers state. Why ‘sui generis’? Because the Cubanrevolution was not started by a leadership that had a workers state in mind; indeed, thatleadership was bourgeois. It was a bourgeois leadership, and it had only intended to humaniseCuban capitalism. Half way through the revolution, however, and in conditions of the existenceof the USSR, a workers state rose up in Cuba practically in the teeth of that leadership. This iswhy the Cuban leaders of that epoch kept speaking for a whole period of a ‘moralised’ capitalistregime. This can be checked in Castro’s speeches. It is the masses that imposed the Cubanworkers state.

This is the way this characterisation of ‘sui generis’ came up; meaning that this revolution

17 / 38


conformed to no model and resembled no other. Cuba had acquired characteristics of its own,exclusive to itself and due to the fact that the historic roots of the revolution were bourgeois; itsobjectives long remained bourgeois too. It is only along the way that the leadership gottransformed and became revolutionary. How do you qualify such an unprecedented thing? Wecould not say this revolution was deformed or degenerated! It was a revolution that triumphedover a leadership that was initially contrary. More than contrary: opposed, because it had onlywanted capitalism with a moral face. It is on the way that it became clear the revolution was notjust the result of a guerrilla struggle. The peasants and the workers had entered the ranks. It istrue to say also there was no real conflict between the leadership and the masses. When theleaders tried to moralise capitalism they soon realised – and they did this on the way – that thiscould only be done by a workers state. Such are the superb conditions of history that are so richin examples. Fidel Castro is a leader who said, at first, that his plan was to moralise capitalism,but who understood that the liquidation of the capitalist regime was necessary to actually do it.This is a splendid source of revolutionary teachings.

We have also said that the political revolution in Cuba was ‘sui generis’. This is because theCuban leadership had such origins that, when it came to power, it had no arrogance and nosentiment of prepotency. The latter are the characteristics of those who take power in privateproperty. Far from this, the Cuban leaders wanted to develop the revolution. That revolution wasso poor that it had to resort to means never seen in other workers states. We intervened in it.We proposed a law for the vote at 16, popular committees for each block of houses, and otherthings. We retook these points later for Algeria, enlarging upon them. The idea of popularcommittees is to enable the population to intervene, to be involved in everything that comes topass. The inhabitants of a block lead a public life; they do not just exercise control andsurveillance for the revolution because they play a political role. We proposed to thesecommittees they should meet weekly and discuss all the events taking place in society. This isthe way to nurture the cultural capacity of a people, create leaderships and set up anadministration for society. There will be many other workers states of the Cuban kind in thefuture.

Our International must know about every one of those problems and discuss them. In ourinterventions, we must be able to explain the different categories of workers states:degenerated, deformed, non-deformed and ‘sui generis’. We deemed this characterisation of‘sui generis’ necessary because it underlines a given state in the world relations of forces.Indeed, it is the world balance of forces that lent Cuba the strength and courage. The latter wasnot programmatically conscious of this in the beginning, but it became aware of it afterwards.With the qualifier of ‘sui generis’, we make an appraisal of a historic period. It is not a catchphrase or a game in terminology, because it allows us to show that it is possible to navigate inhistory. With it, we have shown how to draw courage from favourable conditions when theyexist, in a world rich in possibilities but short of ‘road maps’ with locations clearly marked.

All this must be known in the way we make known the programme of the Left Oppositionproposed by Trotsky, whilst he was still in the Soviet Union. Trotsky is our example. He spelledout the measures, industrial and agricultural, to be taken according to the state of the SovietUnion and that of the world revolution at the time. Later, Stalin himself retook numerous pointsof the programme of the Left Opposition - unfortunately applying them in the ‘stalinian’ manner.

18 / 38


For it was not enough that he should retake the programme, there remained the question ofknowing how to apply it. It is around that time that Trotsky spoke of the famous ‘scissors’question at the points of which he placed the towns on one side and the countryside on theother. In a mostly backward country, focus is very much on economic development. This is notthe case in relatively advanced countries, but in a backward country agriculture has the largestplace in the economy. An ill-handled scissors will easily set town and country against eachother. This is still entirely valid today, in China for example, and it must be discussed and wellunderstood. Stalin rejected Trotsky, but he had to apply Trotsky’s policies. What happened nextwas that he did not apply them through the proletariat - but through the bureaucracy. Result: sixmillion peasants killed. This was the result of Stalin’s enforced collectivisation, with almost 40%of the cattle slaughtered. The comparisons Trotsky drew with the scissors, and on how exactlyto handle them, are still valid today.

This kind of problem will come again in the next stages, in the Spanish revolution perhaps.Fortunately, things are easier nowadays compared with the epoch of the Russian Revolution. Inthe future, those handling the ‘scissors’ will probably do it – with buttons! Besides, there is todaya greater experience in people; the peasants have matured much politically, for example. Thisfacilitates the application of the ‘scissors’. The ‘scissors’ question will carry on existing to theextent that it lies in the path of historic finality; but it has changed a lot in the forms under whichto apply it, making the task immeasurably simpler.

It is necessary to discuss the reasons for the formation of the bureaucracy. This aspect ofhistory is neither overcome nor surmounted. The discussion about ambition and theprofessional dangers of power remains on the order of the day. Mentalities, customs and allhuman experiences as we know them, have developed in the specific relations of privateproperty, in the present relations of power. All this is still relevant to the extent to which theBolsheviks were not able to develop worldwide. Their experiences of 1917 span only a fewyears. The subsequent historic conditions prevented them from having a longer range. Theproblems of power are still with us. If the Bolsheviks are no longer with us, their experienceremains indispensable to us and quite irreplaceable in the fight against the professional dangersof power.

Even though there is no immediate prospect of a new Stalin or for a new historic ‘stalinian’cycle, the danger remains that the progress of history may receive a serious set back. Forexample, there is the danger that, in its very moment of readiness for nuclear war, capitalismmay still be granted a degree of space. There are signs of this: the more capitalism is given timeand allowed to get ready for war, the greater damage it will inflict on humanity. True, it is not in aposition to determine when, how and where to launch the war, because the war will be imposedon it by the course of the revolution; the latter will force it to launch it. Nonetheless, bypostponing the historic solution of socialism, one gives capitalism time to equip itself with evermore devastating means of destruction. Imperialism has now acquired this fragmentation bomb,the like of which it will use in strikes, local struggles, revolutions and civil wars. Had humanitydestroyed capitalism in 1945, there would have been no so such ‘fragments’ - atomic orotherwise.

The communist leaders do not inquire into those questions inasmuch as their way of thinking is

19 / 38


a function of that prevailing in the Soviet Union: the absence of Marxist analysis. They perceivehuman life and events from the premise that there will be no general war. But general war thereis already! For, if you add all the local wars plus their sequels, plus all those due to theexistence of capitalism, doesn’t this add up to general war? War is the consequence ofcapitalism. Put together, the casualties occasioned by the famines, draughts and the workaccidents – isn’t that war? Three years ago, a communist made a beautiful analysis showingthat, in Italy, there had been more killed at work in five years than during the whole of theRussian Revolution! Why so much outrage about the deaths caused by civil wars andrevolutions? Statistics talk louder and say: capitalism in Italy killed more workers in five yearsthan the entire Russian Revolution!

Let us not forget either all those who died in the Middle East wars, the assassinations in Spain,in Portugal, Ethiopia, in the Far East. Just these, have left more than seven millions dead. Whocan come now, and say: ‘you see, there hasn’t been war and general confrontation has beenavoided’. This is perfect bureaucratic rubbish. If you add on top of this all the deaths capitalismhas occasioned, you have the equivalent of several nuclear wars. And now, yet again on top ofthis, capitalism possesses weapons that can kill in one day what it could in one year before. Anyprolongation in the existence of capitalism allows it to increase its concrete capacity to inflictever more historic devastation. How can anyone say; ‘we are going to stop general war’? All youget is greater delays, and all-out war is not prevented in the least.

This is to be raised with the communists, telling them how inexact it is to pretend there has notbeen general war - and, related to this, we must explain what the workers state really means.We must show that, yes, it has a contradictory character, and why. The roots of thecontradiction must be elucidated, together with what to do about it. We must discuss therelationship there is between the workers state and the world course of the revolution: howbureaucracy is formed, the question of the professional dangers of power, how to avoid these.One simple thing: if bureaucracy rules now, it is because a category of people, a social layer,stood up as a power: in a private capacity and entirely on its own behalf as a layer, it arrogatedto itself the usufruct of the state-owned property. That is all there is to it.

Bureaucracy is empirical and so, it cannot reason about production or general policy. This is soeven if, since Stalin, it has somewhat increased its means for reasoning in the USSR. This isnot because it has become suddenly endowed with theoretical and political qualities; it is due tothe role of the worker state, the rise in the world revolution and the struggle of the masses.These are the factors that have kept capitalism at bay, and forced bureaucracy to take notice.The world balance of forces has tipped favourably towards the workers states. The spread ofscience and of industry in the other workers state is now a reality. It imposes itself bydemanding a superior planning. In turn, the latter demands the elimination of the impediments,the hindrances and the obstacles represented by the bureaucratic way of planning. The latter, infact, is little more than the management of interests for the local and individual bureaucrats, forgroups, casts and camarillas. Today’s reality produces internal alterations in the bureaucracy,forcing it to act differently. This change does not come from the force of fresh intelligence oranalysis, but from reality that drags the bureaucrat along into some non-bureaucratic plan.

If bureaucracy were a logical consequence of revolution, it would demonstrate some ability. Like

20 / 38


Marxism does, it would foresee. But no: it is entirely incapable of this. And it is incapable,precisely because it is not the logical result of any necessity. If you observe it, you realise that itis forever taken by surprise instead. In the workers states, the confidence of the masses growsin relation to the economic advance, the progress made in science, technology and in the classstruggle. The most backward layers of bureaucracy, its local layers particularly, are beingeliminated. It is not excluded that ability and intelligence do enter the bureaucracy at somepoints. But, regardless of this, the historic uselessness of bureaucracy remains. The same goesfor the useless historic role of bureaucracy - bureaucracy being the usurper. No amount ofimprovement in production can change what it is. The balance of forces may become asfavourable to human progress as could be, but the historic role of bureaucracy remains noxiousand useless.

Each of our sections must study these questions as this is going to be quite indispensable in thecoming stages. Take the examples of Yugoslavia, Rumania, the USSR or China. In theseworkers states, the persistency of the demand for change aggravates the internal squabbles inthe bureaucracy. Increases in production and improvements in its concentration provokeclarifications as well as more concentrated and centralised efforts. These come into collisionwith the local interests of each bureaucracy. In the past, the various bureaucratic layersmanaged to agree amongst themselves, albeit under the domination of the more powerfulbureaucrats. As this kept them going, they respected each other’s agreements even when thishurt their local interests.

Today, the increase, concentration and centralisation of production in the workers state arehurting these local interests; but this time, in a way that tends to eliminate them. Thebureaucracy as a whole finds that this process boosts its overall power - military, economic andsocial: But political, not so. Far from it: its contradictions increase. As it loses local points ofsupport, its historic perspectives and role go on weakening.

So, for our part, we can no longer reason as we used to. We must start from today’s conditionswhere tendencies appear and tend towards reasoning. For reason circulates quite freely andwithout difficulty in the streets of any workers state, contrarily to what happens in the capitalistregime. In the workers state, the rapport and need between people are straight. They arediaphanous compared to those in the capitalist state where the interest of each is individual,and the economy depends on each individual wanting a profit. The workers state, on the otherhand, is planned and centralised: the relations between people are not entirely simplified, butthey are already diaphanous in comparison; human relations in the workers state do not havethe tortured character they have in the capitalist system where each boss is obsessed withcompetition and with putting the others down. This explains the devious relations betweenpeople in capitalism, full of deceit and trickery. In the workers states, the need to centralise, ofitself, is a simple and diaphanous thing. This is so, even with the bureaucracy that is not withoutits share of twisted interests! What there is, in the workers state, is the straightforward possibilityfor improvement. This is why it is necessary to intervene to help the communist movement toreason this out. As for us, we must increase our own conscious weight and gain bases ofsupport to carry out this task.

In the nationalist movements like that of Mexico, for example, our task is slightly different. We

21 / 38


must make proposals and be full of ideas. Why not propose a ‘production plan’ for instance, aplan that raises fundamental points of principle, leaving aside the greatest or the most ambitiousplan: the most important thing in such countries is to pose the need for trade union democracy,and the intervention of the masses: democracy for the masses, mind - not bourgeoisdemocracy. This has to mean that the masses intervene in the control of production; that theyhave the right to judge what they produce, to reason and decide. No plan of production that failsto mention democracy for the masses is acceptable. In the case of Mexico, the production planis irretrievably tied to the struggle of the masses to liquidate the ‘charros’. If the Mexicangovernment wishes to help in doing this: even better. But as regards the liquidation of thebureaucracy in Mexico, do not expect this to come from decrees or laws! This is not to sayeither that we should oppose a helpful government. It simply means that if the masses do nothave the right to exercise democracy, the bureaucrats will regroup at every turn. The massesmust be in a position to intervene, and with the full right to make tendencies.

We must prepare our sections for this sort of intervention. Our Mexican comrades must arrangeto have time for growth, numerical and qualitative. The preparation of their capacity must resultboth from study and practical application, in order to debate and draw lessons from theexperiences made. In Mexico it is possible to encourage the nationalist movement. We mustintervene in this sense, particularly towards the conscious wing inside the nationalists seekingthe progress of Mexico. The same goes for the proletarian wing. Towards these, we mustsuggest ideas, taking account that Echevarria is an advanced nationalist. He has just made adeclaration where he said that the unification of the USSR and China is necessary because thiswould give a powerful stimulus to his own ability to advance in Mexico. True, he may have saidthis to justify himself; but it is a thing that he would not have done if we were in the situation ofonly ten years ago. People like Echevarria did not exist ten years ago. Take account of what itmeans when a leader like him, the head of a bourgeois country and bourgeois government,says this in the face of the world and of his country! This is not the idea of someone who thinksin capitalist terms; he is rather like someone who, whilst still in the capitalist house, looks out ofthe window towards the house in front. This thinking is not for those in the capitalist house.Echevarria went to China, then to the USSR, and he told them: ‘Unify’! Here, you can see theother effect the disintegration of the capitalist system has, leading nationalism to take new, morevivid and direct forms. Nationalism starts looking in the direction of the workers state and at theworkers state’s manner of economic development.

The difficulty when one intervenes in these movements is twofold: not to turn away is one, andnot to drown in their limitations, is the other. This is where theoretical and political preparation isparamount, requiring an intense political life between the International and its leadership. Thefundamental matters to preoccupy each of our sections are: to learn and dominate how theworkers state is constructed, and how the world communist movement, the USSR and China,must unify. Imagine the USSR and China unified! What a great conquest for the progress ofhumanity, ten thousand times greater than the Soyouz-Apollo space encounter! The unificationof USSR and China is beyond question the single most important thing that will fill humanity withthe confidence it needs: lifting from its shoulders the weight of a very great anguish; making itcapable of winning immense layers of petty bourgeois, peasant and army people. Thisunification will vastly reduce the field of action of capitalism, restricting its sphere of influenceand of organisation. It will point in the direction of a world on a par with China and the USSR.

22 / 38


And most importantly, it will show the masses of North America how to gain the upper hand inbuilding their own class party.

We must dominate these questions and raise them with the communists. We must usepersuasion, avoiding polemics and confrontations. In the world communist movement, we arealready known. One of our aims when we held our IX world congress was to become theTrotskyist-Posadist wing of the world communist movement and we have achieved this. Now,we plan to be recognised as a thinking part of the world communist movement. This is not fornow or may be next year. We may even remain some time on the ground floor. But our aim is toget to the higher storeys; for this, the capacity for reasoning is requisite.

The existence of a gigantic process of dual power and of permanent revolution in the worlddetermines the course of the political revolution. Trotsky was looking out for it in the USSR.Today, we too work in the same perspective, but on the scale of the world process of thepermanent revolution. This is because the latter enormously facilitates the political revolutiontoday.

We have other tasks in the meantime: our sections, our parties, must prepare consciously,theoretically and politically to intervene in the nationalist movements, as in Argentina, to supporttheir progress and to encourage them to adopt a Marxist understanding.

Marxism is no longer at the stage of twenty, or twenty-five years ago. Then, it still had to knockand ask permission to enter. Thanks to human intelligence, it is now in demand among themilitary, and in the various Churches. Everyone needs Marxism, even those who still try toreconcile it with God. Marxism need not reconcile itself with anything. As tool of progress andunderstanding, it cannot be given rules to follow. Either it is a method for the dialecticalinterpretation of history, or it is a broken tool.

One must increase the Marxist capacity of our sections, plan our activities and improve ourcadres. We have to tackle the process as required by its unfolding. We must give impulses andgain authority, taking positions in the public and immense world polemic that leads to socialism.We must improve on previous experiences and on the actual ones; above all, we must answerto the needs of the world communist movement.

Soviet bureaucracy is not a class; it is the representation of social interests that exist in a layerof soviet society. Even if it has some attributes of a class, it is not one. What it has, and in nosmall measure, is the pretension and the thirst for being a class. We must insist that it is not aclass. It has no class function because it represents neither the functioning of the economy northat of the future of the economy. Bureaucracy is not a proprietor of the economy: it derives ausufruct from it. It does not represent the economic or social structure of the workers state. It isnot a class because there is no private property. Bureaucracy is in contradiction with theworkers state. As it goes on defending itself in order to exist, bureaucracy is led to defend thestate-owned character of the state and of property. At the same time, and equally in order topreserve itself, it must stop the workers state from going forward.

This is the manner in which bureaucracy is drawn behind the development of the workers state,

23 / 38


having to produce the means and conditions for its own liquidation. Let us be clear in this: itdoes not mean that bureaucracy will go away. It means that the advances of history generateorganisms that are pushing it aside. These advances are: various proletarian organisms,proletarian struggles, higher levels of class struggle – and our own intervention as the publicgood of history.

We have to prepare and discuss. There is a particular preparation to be made, a preparationcalled for by the very reasons and conditions in which the capitalist system must be destroyed.For example, the fact that one may reach office via elections is far from being the same ashaving eliminated the capitalist system! At the moment of coming to office, and more than ever,previous preparation must have been made in order to know how to liquidate and replacecapitalism. To get to office via the parliamentary road is conceivable today, but it will not bepossible to keep using parliament and govern onwards to socialism. The fact that one can beelected to some government, results from a given world balance of forces which did not exist inMarx’s or in Trotsky’s time.

No revolution has ever turned its back on the advances made by history, whatever the formsthese advances may have taken. Far from it, revolution picks up the various forms of thoseadvances, gives them the right shape and incorporates them into its natural flow. So, to returnto our example concerning elections, it has indeed become possible to get to governmentthrough elections. But then, after having been elected, it is not possible to stay there, becausethe situation changes at this point. It immediately demands that one musters all the meansavailable in readiness for the revolutionary situation that appears straight away. One has to beready for the suppression of the capitalist state and face the army.

The army can be won fractionally as we can see in Portugal. We can see this also to a certainextent in Peru or in Argentina. One must not pause to wait and see which side the army is goingto take. One must have created beforehand a dynamic movement sufficiently attractive andconvincing to be able to have influence in the army. One must be capable of making it moreaware that its role can be modified. One can make a difference inside the army. It can be raisedculturally and intellectually above what it is now. It can be influenced to feel more useful thanbefore. Its uniform can be made to evoke something the soldier can identify with progress.Then, the army stops being in awe of its uniform (2). It stops looking for medals and rewards; itstarts wanting to give ideas. The day the military enters the field of ideas and thought, the gunceases to be the deadly antagonist of society it is now. To be any good, the gun must be heldby intelligence in consideration of the need for human progress. A French song says: “Drop theguitar and take the gun”. Indeed. But remember too that the gun is a transitory instrument,whilst the guitar is not.

THE ROLE OF THE IV INTERNATIONALAND THE PARTICIPATION OF ITS PARTIES

We must have a domination of the experiences that we make. We must plan the progress of oursections, generalise editions and world meetings. We have to do this particularly regarding what

24 / 38


transpires after our interventions towards the communist parties, the nationalist movements andthe nationalist governments, without forgetting that the revolutionary movements amongst thepoorest people have a tremendous longing for progress - as in Ethiopia. We can developourselves. We can progress in these movements and in many parts of the revolutionarymovement. We can do this not only as a public good of history that relays ideas to them, but asa leadership ourselves.

This requires an increasing political life in the sections. Plans of growth and programmes areneeded. Each section must discuss how best to edit its weekly paper, how to publish the textsof the International, how to develop teams of good translators, whilst bringing out brochure afterbrochure.

We return to the question of the judgement we make of our role as organiser in history by thepublication of texts, papers and reviews. No organism can replace this because the papersshow our centralised capacity to reason, to think and give ideas. The paper is what transmitsthe authority of an organism, a thing very superior to the action of one or other of our comradeseven when speaking in the name of the party. For the latter remains an individual. On the otherhand, what exerts an immense authority is the action of the organ, the voice of the organ, thevoice of the fraction or of the cell, when supported by publications. This makes a unity betweenthe thinking organ and the individual militant.

All the sections, the French, the Greek or the Mexican, for instance, must aim at regularisingtheir publications. They must write good texts, increase their political ability, organise andeducate new leaders. To be a leader means to have the capacity to think in order to generalisethe application of the policy. This applies not only to immediate tasks but essentially to thecapacity to think; to think objectively for what is best, to increase the capacity for reasoning, toincrease yet more the capacity to think, decide, publish and apply. This is the task that we cantake forward, and must take forward.

The presence of the Greek section here is an immense joy. This will have very importanteffects; already it puts us in contact with the conscious origins of human civilisation. The historicprinciples have not changed. The Ancient Greeks laid the foundation for Marxism, and withMarx, we are taken back to Ancient Greece - albeit enabled to go beyond Socrates and Plato.

We draw conclusions from all experiences. We do this in the most centralised way possible. It isevident that the process requires the generalisation of ideas. It is imperative that one shouldanalyse objectively, for scientific advances keep coming and must be incorporated. Science isalready becoming universalised in all fields of human activity both on land and in space.

It is false to say that Soyouz or Apollo exemplify human progress. Sure, they are great,particularly on the Soviet side. But the progress evoked in them is better expressed in thePortuguese grandmother who raises her combative fist even though her son has been torturedto death in prison and she is 80 years old (3). She carries more meaning than all the Apollosand Soyouzes, because she represents the unity of the progress of humanity, progressultimately determined by the existence of the workers states. The communist parties must beseen as a branch of this unity. This is so even when they do not contribute much to its advance.

25 / 38


Even these parties will be pushed forward by history. At present, in their immense majority, thecommunist parties, like the socialist ones, appear disconcerted.

We must intervene with publications, showing the activity of our organisms whilst trying to gainmore authority among the communists. Our parties must prepare themselves for this. This is notthe simplest of tasks, admittedly, but it not so difficult either. There are imperatives and norms,because we have to acquit ourselves of our task scientifically and with great regularity. Thisendeavour develops the capacity to observe, analyse, draw conclusions; one learns how togeneralise from every experience and how to retain from each what can be applied elsewhere.The small kernel of people we are has immense possibilities.

Had we strictly gone on repeating one or other of Trotsky’s teachings, we may have grown innumbers and gained a certain mass following. And then, we would have been one more ‘leftwing group’. We did not choose to do this. But even then, it is worth considering that apart fromthe communists and the socialists, there are hardly any new large movements forming now.There are the nationalists, but they tend to be either socialist or communist. And the reason whythey have appeared as nationalists is because of the deficits of history. On the whole, none ofthese three formations represents the progress of humanity with its thirst for programme. Hadthere been no nationalists, all the movements would have been communist or socialist. The riseof nationalism, to be seen even in the military, highlights the trajectory of the process of history,seeking the logical progress of the economy, of science and of the human relation. Nationalismarises because progress has not found a logical and centralised leadership elsewhere. Thisexplains the great empiricism of the actual process.

But however empirical it may be, this process fluctuates around a norm: the norm of intelligentprogress. This explains countries like Ethiopia, or Portugal. It explains what happens inArgentina, or the fact that the masses of Italy have managed to make great revolutionary gainswithout shattering their own leadership. Mind you, if the latter does not take power, the massesmay not put up with it much longer.

To accomplish our task we must focus on theoretical and political dominion. We have to bringfresh material to the continuity of the historic experience we have inherited from history. Thiscan only be done through the instrument that permits it. The dialectical materialism from whichMarxism emanates, is the sole means of dependable interpretation.

We contribute to the historic task of building a concrete organisation capable of lending to thecommunist parties, the workers states and the revolutionary movements a greater level ofdetermination. Without a tangible effect from our organisation, the deficit for history would beenormous and the world communist movement very much set back.

We are not a mass movement. When we say this, is not for pride or to make up for the forceswe lack. Instead, we feel full of force considering the role we play, and considering the tasks weknow to be as necessary today as yesterday. Trotsky did not make a mass movement either.He could easily have done so, but such a movement would have degenerated in the waymovements do when their motive is a career, or the satisfaction of the ambition for might andpower. Such movements usually concentrate on a single issue and they use it as a ladder up

26 / 38


which for them to climb. Not for them to lead history.

In our work we verify that, beyond the problem of each and every individual, the objective andcollective plea of all humanity is at stake. Our task makes us the public servant of history. Weare profoundly sorry for the errors committed by the communist movement and the reverses ithas suffered. From both errors and reverses, we aim at putting the finger on what should restoreto them their capacity to think and to act. Inside ourselves we concentrate our will to see to itthat history progresses, and we do so with equal vigour whether it happens through thecommunists, the socialists, the nationalists – or through ourselves.

So, if we are small, it is not due to some impotence; it is not from a failing or a lack. Our role islike this and it hardly allows for our growth. It is nonetheless possible to combine what we dowith some growth in places, in Africa, Asia and Latin America; or in some communist parties.This is all we have to say about our growth.

We salute with our communist love the decision that the Latin American sections have taken viathe Latin American Bureau, to publish the Marxist Review. We propose that the same resolutionbe extended to the sections of the other countries. If three Marxist Review issues wereappearing in France, Italy and Britain, it should bring back enough means to fulfil our presentplans for Europe. The dialectical appraisal of the process makes us think that the solution to ouractual deficiencies lies in more regular duplicated or printed texts. I propose this as a resolutionto be voted on. This is the plan, and we call on the sections to do the same. We understand thedifficulties created by the lack of finances and cadres. But we have been so much poorer in thepast and still we got where we are now. Real wealth does not strictly lie in a lot of money ormeans, but in the capacity to think and to reason. For, in the wake of the capacity to think andreason, the other means are bound to come.

Conclusions like this must be drawn. We must grow by increasing the political life of thesections. Cell life, like that of the other organs, must focus on programming the tasks, on growthtargets, interventions and activities to gain authority. We must at the same time concentrate onpublishing and distributing, whilst increasing the theoretical and political ability of the partyorgans. We must create leaders who learn how to be audacious, but not blindly so. We have thecapacity to organise, to educate cadres, and this is why we can adopt these objectives. Theseare not pious wishes because we are already doing it. The key is to read, discuss and publish.

We are not many but the potential for our intervention is immense. We have no comrade with asmallness complex, or a chip on the shoulder for having been outdone by a ‘left group’; what wehave is the consciousness necessary to play our role in history. This gives us the ability to findthe solution to the problems as they come. Scarcity in material means gives us most of ourproblems. However, our scientific capacity for the organisation of ideas is inexhaustible. It is thelatter that we use, and it guides our sentiments. If it were not so, the problems would be toomuch.

We are glad to see here all our Latin American delegations; so happy to see the comradessurgeons who come to contribute to history. They come to operate – so to say – not with thetools of medicine but with those of revolution and Marxism. What better? After the operation by

27 / 38


these most complete instruments, the surgeons of the future will have complete success insurgery - unlike now. To the extent to which humanity progresses, the need for surgeons anddoctors lessens because the rise in human love acts as a medicine in itself. It can often be averitable substitute to medicine. The structure of the nervous system, central guide to ourmovements, is craving after human love. Under the reign of a greater amount of human love,there corresponds a greater fitness of the heart, of the head and of the body. Then, there is littleneed for the doctor. See how after revolution in Portugal and Ethiopia, a kind of historic healingdescended and what a superior sense of wellbeing it gave! At present, we use medicine andoperations ordinarily, but intervention is necessary at a much deeper level. This is why the greatdoctors and the great artists join the revolution. It is only when they are included in this way inhistory that they really feel completely useful.

In the name of the International Secretariat, I end this report, having summed up the essentialthings. We believe that it has been good, and has laid the foundation for reasoning, thought andexperience to help to develop further. I conclude with the greatest and clearest confidence thatwhat we have said forms part of the most elevated scientific experience since Trotsky. And yet,this was done in the simplest and most homogeneous manner - that of communism. We havegone into quite sensitive matters, and it was all very simple. Leaderships often confuse meansand ends: either they make their party an end in itself, or they make politics an end in itself:nothing better designed to make simple problems very complicated!

We are identified with history through our goal. It is not an abstract kind of identification, but thesort that reaches down where progress is most concentrated and decisive: in the progress ofthe human mentality. In a given state of human mentality, all the other aspects of humanachievement in the economy, in society and in science, are pressed together. They combine toeventually flourish into a greater level of human love. In private property or in the bureaucracy,human love is stunted. And yet, it is human love that drives the locomotive of human relations,unfailingly - even when there are many stops. Humanity has the ability to assimilate theexperiences of history made under the leadership of the proletariat, and the proletariat derivesthis capacity from its historic role and social function in the economy.

We have been able to assemble here people from very different social backgrounds, and yetthey all adhere to this task of giving ideas in this empirical process. After the RussianRevolution, the progress of history continued to be empirical. Now, economic, social and militarypower, have become concentrated in either capitalist states or in workers states. In none ofthose states, however, can you find the ideas, the programme and the capacity forgeneralisation at the level required to bring down the capitalist system. Each side hasdeveloped an immense economic, social and military power, but neither has managed toconcentrate the capacity for thought. We have this capacity.

We have this capacity evidently limited, but in sufficient measure to enable us to accomplish ourtask and play our role in history. When Trotsky died, he said: “Viva the IV International. I believein the objective role of the IV International in the defence of the workers state”. It is the samewith us; our role is justified and even recognised. The proof of this can be seen in our risingorganic influence in mass movements where we find approval. History marches on, taking uswhere important decisions are being made, converging and concentrating around the economic,

28 / 38


social, political and military centres of the workers states. What is needed is ideas - ideas tofeed the currents, the tendencies and the groups that are going to need them, and who do notappear ready to produce them. Between them and us there is an identity. This is why, as wecome closer to them, we find no rejection. Far from it, an attraction draws us into an increasinglyconcentrated historical vortex that concentrates the progressive strands of history, of which weare one.

Next month is the anniversary of Trotsky’s assassination. At the root of our confidence anddevelopment there is the political confidence Trotsky gave us: confidence in the programme, inthe need for experience and for scientific application. We continue Trotsky’s task. We feelourselves capable of doing it, knowing it to be irreplaceable. We must study all of Trotsky’sworks without ceasing to be active, finding time for both political preparation and organisation.

This Congress of the Trotskyist-Posadist IV International has done what it set out to do. It is anecessary instrument of history for the conscious progress towards socialism. We feel ourselvesto be part of that progress. The various experiences we have made or spoken about must beassimilated. We must puzzle out of them what can be concretely applied in the best possibleway, and generalise it to the whole International. In turn, this will make the International betterable to influence the workers and revolutionary movement.

There are difficulties to the extent that we lack the means corresponding to our scientific ability.We need means in the measure of our consciousness and high level of intelligence. We havethe audacity to intervene as much towards the Soviet Union as China – calling on them to unify.We do the same regarding the revolutionary nationalists, as in Mexico, Argentina or Algeria; andwe do this regardless of the fact that they are each at a different level and in need of differenthistoric solutions. We have enough capacity and determination to cope with these differences.We already assume the responsibility of studying them, and we contribute to the process inwhich history finds its different solutions.

We salute the masses of the workers states. We salute the workers states themselves. There isthe urgent historic need for the unification of the USSR and China. We are not of those who sailthrough history, or give it a coin as we pass by. Our project is to intervene in this process,directly - and at the head. It is with this in mind that we shape our capacity for intervention. TheBrazilian section gives an example in how this is done: though under government persecutionand repression, it publishes the Marxist Review and develops its influence in the nationalistmovement.

I reiterate my joy in having met the new comrades. I end this Report with a fraternal embrace toall the comrades in all the sections.

· Viva the X Congress of the Trotskyist-Posadist IV International!· Viva the immense increase in our contribution to the fusion of the USSR and China and ll theworkers states, for the greater advance of history and of all of humanity!· Viva to our dear comrades in all countries who have not been able to come but who are by ourside in pressing forward for the world development of the revolution, and of the

29 / 38


Trotskyist-Posadist IV International!· Viva the application of all the resolutions and all the conclusions – with the least delay!J Posadas – 26th July 1975

Notes:

1. The Bologna Whistles and the Need for a Government of the Left in Italy – J Posadas, 12thAugust 1974. See Red Flag No. 230.

2. The Avalanche of Votes for the Communist Party and the Left Government in Italy – JPosadas, 15th June 1975. See Red Flag No. 246.

3. The Military, the Progress of History and Marxism – J Posadas, 11th June 1973.

4. The Revolution in Portugal Elevates the Role of the Old People – J Posadas, 20th September1974. See Red Flag 232.

In the Red Flag Button of this site, you should find the following text: (Red Flag No. 241 - 2ndMay 1975): “The Bureaucracy of the Workers States and the World Process of the PermanentRevolution” - J Posadas, 15th February 1975.

Finally, still among the papers we intend to place on the Red Flag button, you will eventually findrelevant texts, as follows:

· Red Flag No. 230 – 29th October 1974 – The Whistling in Bologna and the Need for the LeftGovernment in Italy, J Posadas, 12th August 1974.· Red Flag No. 246 – 11th July 1975 – The Avalanche of Votes for the Communist Party and theLeft government in Italy, J Posadas, 15th June 1975.· Red Flag No. 232 – 26th November 1974 – The Revolution in Portugal Elevates the Functionof the Old People, J Posadas, 20th July 1974.· Red Flag No. 254 – 28th November 1975 – The Rebellion in the Barracks and the Revolutionin Portugal, J Posadas, 16th October 1975.· Red Flag No. 234 – 14th January 1975 – The Soldiers and the Permanent Revolution inEthiopia, J Posadas, 26th November 1974.· Red Flag No. 240 – 15th April 1975 – The Closing Speech of the V Cadre School of thePosadist IV International, J Posadas, 31st December 1974.· Red Flag No. 252 – Press Communique on the X World Congress of the Trotskyist Posadist IVInternational, International Secretariat, August 1975.· Red Flag No. 255 – 12th December 1975 – The X World Congress of the Trotskyist PosadistIV International, Opening Speech, J Posadas, 19th July 1975

REPLY TO THE INTERVENTIONSON THE ORGANISATIONAL REPORT

30 / 38


J POSADAS28 July 1975

With immense joy, we make this reply to close the debates and affirm the Congress resolutions.Our joy comes from duty accomplished. It is made possible by the fact that we preparedconsciously beforehand to respond to this need of history. Our joy is in seeing human thoughttreasured, made victorious and chosen as the standard bearer at every stage of the progress ofhumanity. The problems we have talked about are not difficult in themselves, since Marxismgives us the simple tool by which means to interpret. The difficulty lies in the need to acquire, atthe same time, more material means and more preparation. We need ever more theoretical andpolitical preparation to generate policy, experience, organisation and discipline. In having to dothis in a world fairly torn apart by economic competition and amid the appalling disorder of thehuman relation, the difficulty is increased. Against this, we make use of Marxism, the mostelevated, the most complete and the most centralised form of discipline – monolithic even.

There are those who bristle at the evocation of centralisation and of monolithism; but they arenot without being themselves most centralised - in their fear of history. What we do, is tocentralise ourselves on the plane of ideas and in the field where these ideas are used. Marxwas the most complete human being, the most centralised, and indeed monolithic, person! Hehad an aim, and to that aim, he gave everything. To the bristling ones, he said after Dante:“Walk your way, let others bray”. Today, in the name of the same thing we say: “Walk your waybut listen carefully”.

See what happens in Portugal where a popular tribunal recently set up has acquitted a farmhand. The accused was an agricultural worker who killed, justifiably, his feudal boss. Thisinstance illustrates well the principle of what is a popular tribunal. In popular justice, we do notstop at the superficial aspects of a case; we start from these aspects but we inspect what othermatters stand behind them. In this case, we look for the form and the content of the productionthe worker was involved in; we appraise the official justice system that prevailed at the time.Indeed, aren’t we still in a stage of the existence of ‘justice’? In socialism we shall do away with‘justice’ because everything will be just. What we call justice and liberty, arise from specificconditions. It is interesting to note that when the peasants of Portugal decided to direct populartribunals, the socialist leader Soarès had almost a heart attack.

We take part in this Congress closure work with the great joy of feeling united both amongstourselves and to history’s progress; we have achieved this through ideas, programme andpolicy. Of course, it is not us who decide the course of the process. We know very well that itexists independently from ourselves. But by ‘grasping’ it, we can give it order and we can setout, to an extent, to lead it. As the process goes on centralising and concentrating in on itself, ittends to become a single entity. Then, it rejects fragmentation, division and exclusion. It is clearthat there is still much more room for us to intervene in it.

When we intervene in the nationalist and catholic movements, we cannot be everywhere. Ourcalculations, like our organisational intervention and our programmes, must take careful accountof both our forces and our scope. The movements we intervene in are short in ideas,programmes, tactics and experience. But they have the numbers; and within them, there is a

31 / 38


ripening and learning. The Montoneros in Argentina are a case in point, but this applies also tothe nationalists, the left catholics etc. It is particularly so with the socialists and the communists.

History proceeds firmly and resolutely. It is in Marx’s thinking that history finds its most elevatedexpression. Given the actual economic relations, this is going to remain the case for quite sometime. Economic relations still determine the manner in which people think today but not all thepeople, and not all of humanity. Someone like Marx rose and stood up, steadfast against therestrictions such relations impose and the foul competitive human relations they carry. Andtoday, it is these poisoned human relations that are being scattered to the four winds. Thecapitalist straightjacket is being flung off, and behind it goes the type of human relations it hadimposed.

The release of the Portuguese peasant acquitted by a popular tribunal shows the high levelreached by the revolution; all the more when this takes place in a country where neithercommunists nor socialists have known what to do, because ‘they had not enough forces’! Howcould they say this? The popular tribunal shows them: ‘This way!’ There are communist cadreswho know this and who agree entirely. There is always a great distance between the leaders atthe top and what the masses at the base know to be true. This gap, however, is in the processof narrowing down. The people closing it are the socialist and communist cadres, the catholics,the nationalists and even the military. They are moved by the intervention, the determinationand the great experience of the masses. This is the way the process goes.

We are using the expression ‘the joy of intelligence’ because it is a vivid and correct descriptionof what we feel. This feeling is sorely in need of a painter, a poet or a musician to interpret it.There is a new relation of forces in the world. How can intelligence fail to experience joy whenthe masses of the world, often the most wretched, rise up - not for food - but to bring down thehuman relations of oppression? For those who wanted a picture of what ‘the joy of intelligence’looks like: there they have it! Quite unlike, for sure, that of the researcher bent over hispaperwork with one hand against his forehead!

The new relation of forces can be seen in the greater preoccupation and determination of thenationalists in the world. They are buoyed by a swelling tide that moves even the catholic andmilitary circles. In Argentina, this is happening to the Peronist cadres who feel they have tospeak up. The Montoneros who go about terrorising the rich districts of Buenos Aires, are alsodemanding the resignation of Isabel Peron and immediate elections. Since they have taken thispolitical and centralised stand, it shows that they are capable of more than just guerrilla action.Should there be elections now a left government – very much to the left - would win. But theprocess remains confused by the lack of leadership and movements like the Montoneros are amixture of correct and incorrect positions.

In consequence, it is important to plan what we do, to give ourselves plans beforehand and todefine programmes. If not, empiricism sets in; then, one goes running behind one or otherevent, never catching up – even with good legs. To avoid this, one must define plans of goalsand of growth, inside the relevant organism of party intervention. This must be done takingaccount of the fact that the state of the world is favourable and that it is entirely possible to haveinfluence. Even in France, the PCF has positions that show it feels the need to better

32 / 38


understand the process. It has taken a good position on Portugal for example. This proves that,at the base of the PCF, there is an even greater understanding. We must find the means to getin touch with this, meaning that we need a better functioning ourselves with more dynamism,more militant activity. Personal life must gravitate around the revolutionary activity. This in noway signifies some kind of abnegation, because it makes for a much more joyous life.

All the problems of history are summed up in politics. The persons who remain outsiderevolutionary politics are somewhat ‘absent’ from existence. They pass by without knowingwhere they are going. They know neither where they come from nor where they are. For ourpart, this is not so. We do know where we come from, where we are going, and in the meantimewhat we are doing.

To have a revolutionary life, to have a party life, does not mean that we exclude the rest ofexistence! It is only that our existence is concentrated and focused. It enables us to have a quitecomplete and dynamic understanding of the way in which all activities are united; those of themind, those of the sentiments and those of society. Our parties must manage to live in this way,more completely and more systematically. This will generate a better organisation of time, moremeans and more capacity. There is nothing to fear in this discussion because it helps us to seeand understand better what the limitations are.

The process of revolution creates a unity between the experiences made by people and theirlevel of intelligence. There are few things the old Vietnamese grandfather knows that hisgrandchild of twelve does not. The children express this by their reactions, which are thenecessary reactions. We say ‘necessary’ because they are the reactions that allow the childrento intervene, to decide monolithically and to keep their will entirely concentrated. Are there otherfeatures of the human being surpassing these? If humanity already acts like this, why shouldn’twe? Indeed we do already, and we must do it better.

Organising and planning our intervention, we shall overcome the difficulties. The tasks areimmense but they become simpler with the rise in our cultural capacity. Solutions to variousproblems become simpler; the anguish produced by too much to do decreases. True, ourintervention demands more means and more publications, but what it demands most of, isdetermination and audacity.

The realisation of this Congress is an event of great importance in history. In spite of ournumerical weakness, we are going to publish the Marxist Review in different languages, developin various countries and encourage the socialist revolution and the communist movement. Weare not in the habit of checking up on what everyone does, in dwelling on difficulties or inmaking a tragedy of past errors. We simply try to go beyond what is insufficient. This Congresswitnessed not the slightest recrimination; it was homogeneous to the point that there was notthe least hint of disputation. This could only happen because we focus on ideas, and we reason.Each comrade feels united to the other by means of trying to make up for what may be lacking.Conversely, there was no concession made either. The idea of making concessions to eachother is alien to us because our functioning is centralised, and we draw fully on the monolithicconcentration of our thought and capacity.

33 / 38


A movement that is not monolithic and centralised leaves the door open to the winds ofinsecurity. Then doubts and secondary preoccupations enter. The attention of such a movementgets distracted: its subconscious lays prohibitions above which the best impulses and ideas findit difficult to rise. In our case, the opposite takes place; our preoccupation remains constant,permanent and monolithic towards the centralised instrument. This is because we all have thesame attitude towards our essential objective.

Sure, the problems of life in general are important, but they do not decide history. We have notthe forces required to deal with all things, and so, we concentrate on the decisive ones. But farbe it that we should always only talk politics! We are revolutionaries and not politicians! We talkabout things, about the children – a great deal. Incidentally, the children participate in ourmeetings. We talk about intelligence and about ideas. Do not think programme, policy andobjectives suffer in the least because we talk about other things!

We educate the children in order to raise their level of preoccupation. We show them how to beuseful, and how to order the way in which they control their own preoccupation. Order reignshere, as you can see. This order reflects the state of order in our ideas, but above all, in thehuman relation between us. In turn, even though speaking different languages, the childrenhere have been constantly improving. The relations between ourselves sharpen intelligence allround, and edify the children. The children become better able focus their thinking and organisetheir subconscious. Their intelligence finds good nourishment. The children are no longer in thegrip of their own problems but in the hands of intelligence. Their behaviour is quite a statementon this Congress.

We must praise the level of intervention of all the comrades. Centralised monolithism hasprevented dispersion. Monolithism does not mean ‘yes yes’ to everything. It means that onereasons solely as regards to the objective. When capacity and intelligence are tended towardsthe objective, this shapes the mind intelligently. The unconscious receives sustenance. It ismade to see what is necessary, and forget the rest. We saw here neither dispute nor polemicbecause the unconscious was playing its part in helping to reason and decide; it helped inorganising the conscious will, instead of inflating the tendency to empiricism.

The ability to act in this way is not obvious. It is possible only when there is identity betweenhistory and role. It can only happen when there is an identity between what one does and whatone perceives the objectives of history to be. Marx was like this, and we are his disciples. Wehave the same will as him, the same determination. We have the same historic resourcefulnessin resolving problems – albeit not so much as him. We do not have the same intelligence.Marx’s intelligence allowed him to find better means. But we have the same capacity inresolving problems; and this is because we are centralised in a monolithic manner withinMarxism and within the experience of history.

This Congress, centralised and monolithic, has increased intelligence in each of our cadres.This is not an understatement. This is the functioning that each section must reach. It can bedone regardless of the deficits, the limitations and the differing levels. Each section must havethis type of functioning to enable its intelligence to rise. Let us not forget either that humanactivity is requisite to human intelligence. The latter does not improve just with balanced food!

34 / 38


Even though class society hides the fact carefully, intelligence is not individual. Intelligence issocial, and it is a beautiful thing to watch how the children demonstrate it.

The preparation for this Congress must represent an example. Our Congresses are of the bestprepared in history, apart from the first four Congresses of the Communist International. Weprepare them with the view to intervene, to increase our capacity, to raise intelligence, toorganise our sections. We prepare them by means of texts beforehand, by means of CadreSchools and world meetings, as well as with Enlarged International Executive Committees andWorld Conferences.

We do not turn up at a Congress to start debating some problem – or to close the debate on it!We consider that a specific problem, when it arises, is the sharp point of a dynamic process ofchange. What concerns us is to understand this process. Then, we avoid repeating ourselvesand we can return to a task with all due modifications, incorporations and additions.

Take again the instance of the farm hand freed in Portugal. This event took place because oneof the decisions of the MFA (Movement of the Armed Forces) was to set up popularcommissions. The masses agreed, but what they made of it surpassed by far the understandingof the initiators. The decision of the MFA preceded the masses’ demands, but it was soon leftbehind by the tribunal’s verdict! The worker had killed his boss not for revenge or retribution.The killing was an organisational decision of history to remove an obstacle in the way of life.The intelligence of the peasants who sat on the tribunal was prepared. They were alreadydisposed to expropriate and to impose their collective will. There is much dynamism in thisevent. Far from it being abstractly expressed, this dynamism takes the clear form of programme- expropriation and statification. In this, the masses show their capacity for leadership andorganisation, as well as their ability for orientation.

We have realised this Congress by preparing ourselves beforehand. This must be an exampleto all our sections. This Congress was prepared directly by texts, but also by meetings in thewhole world. And it was prepared mostly by our uninterrupted intervention in the movingprocess. We have intervened and continue to do so because we foresee the course of theprocess. We do not write to summarise events or to put off decisions. We organise and developthe activity of the International by the means of foresight. It is thanks to this that ourInternational develops, in the intelligent and uninterrupted harmony that allows everyone toremain constant and fused to the process of history, ready to foresee its course.

About the left wing groups, the other movements and parties: communist, socialist, Trotskyistsor partisans of the guerrilla struggle, this much must be said: They do not manage to coincidewith the unfolding developments and perspectives of history. They do not have the capacity offoresight. They have neither the method, nor the instrument, that lies in Marxism. For our part,we do not pursue an individual aim. We seek to be the public good of history. This places us inthe unique position of being able to really appreciate, to see and to learn. We organise all that isnecessary, not for us, but for the global progress of humanity. One aspect of the progress ofhumanity – essential and irreplaceable – is the ideas, the analyses and their generalisation. Wemust increase the centralised monolithism of our parties in accord with our role as a public goodof history. We are not talking of the stubborn kind of monolithism because that sort sends all

35 / 38


ideas to hell, as well as being a complete block to action.

This is why this Congress has not simply been prepared by texts. It was prepared by all theactivity realised since the preceding Congress. We are the most democratic organisation sinceLenin. We discuss all that is necessary to talk about. This is because intelligence requires it,and the human relation requires it also. We do it even when we do not have the correspondingforces. We take an interest in the questions of the children, love, sex, the role of woman inhistory, music, art, workers councils, military governments – you name it. And none of these areaccessory matters!

Our intervention is a factor that becomes decisive when the process is in crisis. Without ourintervention, it is evident that the process will go on. There was Lenin’s death - then came Stalin- but revolution went on. See how humanity has undergone so many devastations and evenregressions! Had revolution succeeded in Europe in 1945, and it was possible, there would beno capitalism now. This would have prevented umpteenth deaths, more than 50 million humanbeings, at least. The present leaders, cheerfully echoed by the bureaucrats, keep telling us:“They are dead, but history goes on”. Sure, but at what price? How can they say that 50 millionpeople mean so little? To them, it is not important but it is to us, because it hits humanity in itsinnermost principle of creativity and organisation.

If death can still defeat people on the individual level today, it does not on the collective level.Humanity is stronger than death. Death removes one person or another, but the idea goes onmaking waves in ever widening circles. The leaders and the bureaucrats discount this factentirely because they know nothing beyond the individual utilisation of life that they make. Theyare tied to life only through the usufruct they take from it. They do not know how to make anintelligent use of life because this means - the idea. As they look upon the world in a mannerthat is individual, they live and experience life through their backward rapport with history.

We need more weight and numerical force, certainly. But we can also, and we must, encouragecurrents and tendencies to intervene on their own behalf in the setting up of the comingrevolutionary leaderships in the communists and the socialists; and also in the catholics andamongst the military. The meticulousness that characterises our International does not resultfrom the activation of any statute. It stems from having given way to the demands of intelligenceand having trusted it in the choice of the best ideas. Statutes are required where there isinstability, or to arbitrate in disputes, divergences and divisions. We have no need for statutes.Statutes unite people as they cast their separation in stone. Here, our common conviction, ourcommon experience and the determination we all share, is what unites us. All this has come intoplay in the activities we have carried out since the IX World Congress, and before. This is theway in which we manage to keep improving and generalising our capacity to think and toreason.

We have reached a stage when a peasant who killed his landowner proprietor is acquitted. Butthe Portuguese revolution has still not conquered. It is still under the internal pressure exertedagainst it by the instrument it inherited from imperialism, even though this instrument is notstrictly the representative of imperialism – namely: the socialist party. The reasoning of thesocialist masses is advancing rapidly, but not that of the socialist leadership. At this moment,

36 / 38


the masses weigh proportionally more than their leaders, and it is their intelligence andbehaviour that prevent the leaders from causing abandonment - or worse. The qualities of thepeople make up for the lacks in the leaders, their insufficiencies and their incapacity. It makesup for the leaders’ fear. It is in spite of their leaders that the people carry on struggling.

Do not wait for the leaders, for what they are going to do or for what they are going to say. ThePortuguese masses did not; the Soviet masses did not either, and neither do we. If what theleaders say is correct, we follow but we do so with our own initiative and in our own capacity.This is the way the masses do it. If the masses were passive, they would simply acquiesce.They would not goad their leaderships forward into any advance or change - or into betternotions as in this acquittal. You can see how it goes in Portugal, but this happens in Italy too. InItaly, the recurring crises of government, the many bourgeois crises, are due to the masses. Intheir determination and vigour, they drive towards a government of the left, by making everyrightwing and centrist government fail. In Italy, the masses are leaving their mark on everything,and in every crisis.

We cannot but feel joy, an immense joy, in seeing the audacity and determination of the LatinAmerican comrades. They have even less means than the European comrades because theeconomy is more developed in Europe. In Latin America, the comrades form part of theleadership of the revolution even though many are in jail, they are constantly hounded and theycan be arrested at the drop of a hat. They show no paralysis, far from it. The Latin Americansections continue to develop. This is food for meditation! It is very important to appreciate theperseverance of the Latin American Bureau that has not given way to paralysis in the face ofintimidation and harassment.

We must feel also an immense joy for the Spanish comrades whose section has emerged asfirm as rock from a rich but decisive experience. The comrades have stood upright, even whenthe way was muddled. We appreciate this; we are proud that they have not only pulled through,but gained authority. Our activity finds inspiration in such experiences.

There are also the Sardinian comrades who live on an isolated island with hardly any materialmeans at all. In spite of this, they have managed to bring the ‘continent’ into their island. Look atthe disproportions in the process of history, and the way it is unequal and combined. We mustorganise with ideas that explain and persuade. Ideas must look back upon the past, only inorder to be useful to the present. The past that is not linked to the present is of no use. The pastmust be useful in drawing conclusions for application now. This is what the Ancient Greeks toldus and they are still speaking today.

In all this, we have shown what we mean by ‘preparation’. The communist parties do not get soprepared. Their discourse like their meetings are solemn - suit and tie affairs. We do not say thisin jest but to underline how inappropriate and out of step, compared with the dynamism of thisepoch and the ability of the masses. As for them - whether they can read and write - the massesalways come up with the most advanced ideas. Our analytical criticisms always seek to showwhat is to be done.

Experience shows that it is necessary and possible for us to grow and advance. We must learn

37 / 38


how to be available for a greater Marxist culture via our publications and our section’sinvolvement in interventions. Most of all we must do this via the development of our influence inthe communist parties. We must get ready for fresh interventions in the coming crises of thecommunist and socialists parties, in the catholics and in the nationalists.

In the name of the International Secretariat, we salute the Latin American Bureau, the smallBureau in Sardinia, the small Bureau in Spain, and all the Bureaux of the International.

It is with a complete sense of joy that I end my Report. I do this in the absolute certainty that theInternational is going to progress immensely in its activity and apply all the conclusions we havedrawn. This way, the International will be prepared for the next stage and pave the way to thenext Congress.

J Posadas28 July 1975

38 / 38

the global revolutionary process and the function of the ... · the global revolutionary process...

Documents